Workmen's advocate., 1887-03-12
FOR MEN OF WARM HEARTS
 AND LEVEL HEADS.
MoTTo: "rhe laws serve the vigilant. not those who sleep"
CONCLUDED


 the Supreme Court of Iowa, which lays down the following rule:
 "Where servant knows, or by ordi- nary diligence should have known, of the peculiar dangers of his employment, re- sulting from the negligence of his master, he valves his right to recover for injuries resulting from such negligence by re- malnng Tn his masters employment without objection"
 We'll, if a workingman. as an individ- ual, objects, he is discharged; and if an organization is doing it. law and order is being called upon to suppress the riot ers'-wherefore this rule should be abol- ished by legislative action.
 ?. In regard to the negligence of a fellow servant the Supreme Court of Minnesota has rendered the following notable decision:
 "A master is not liable to one servant for injuries caused by the negligence of a co-servant in the same common em- ployment. That the negligent servant is superior in authority or an overseer of the one injured does not take the case out of this rule.
 To what ridiculous extent this fellow ship is held to exist might be illustrated by numerous instances, one of which, a decision of the Supreme Court of Mich- gan, for the sake of better understanding, quote:
 "Where an employer furnishes suit | able Q materials and employs competent | @ carpenters, to construct scatfolding to be used by them in putting the cornice upon a building and the same scailolding is subsequently, used by painters hired to paint the cornce, held that the carpen- ters who constructed the scatfolding and the painters are fellow-servants, and that the employer is not liable for injuries caused to one of the painters by the breaking of the scatlolding."
 Since the workmen have no voice in what persons shall be employed to be. come their fellow" Servants" and their attempts to that effect are being met as in case 1, this rule, as the former, should be abolished, and employers made liable for the acts of one employe to another, the same as railroad company is liable for the injuries passenger receives through the negligence of its employees.
 5. Contrlbutory negligence as means to defeat recovery of damages should so be modified as to Constitute no absolute bar, which 1t should be in cases of gross misconduct only making the rule similar to that in admiralty.
 4. The most perncious attempt to override what little protection the law affords IS practiced in making wage workers sign agreements discharging employers from liability for in juries ars- ing from whatever causes. The methods employed are either direct, with no phrase attached to cover the intent, or under the guise of generosity and benev- olence. While the former way of throw ing off natural responsibilities meets with no adverse criticism on the part of the press-eXcept the few straight workmen's s papers--the latter mode makes it poss- ble for the minions of monopoly to find much to applaud, as illustrating the har- mony between capital and labor. This harmony, which Laurence Gronlund, in his 'Co-Operative Commonwealth" calls that of roast beef and a hungry stomach workmen should try to protect them selves against.
 The Supreme Court of Michigan has had such "benevolence' under consdera- tion in the case of ONeill rerSus Lake Superior Iron Company, decided Novem- Der 17th, last year. This case being in point in every particular, l give its sub stance:
 That company, being anxious to relieve itself from iabiity-which, translated into the sweet language labor tleecers employ to deceive their "hands," reads, "having the well-being of our employees at heart provided benefit fund into which each workman had to pay thirty cents a month, and the company con tributing an amount equal to the aggre- gate. The company intrusted itself with the management of that fund, and had special receipts prepared for the ac- acknowledgement of sums received by de- pendents, relative of injured workmen in case of injuries resulting in death of the injured; and receipts acknowledging pay ment of money from this fund to men merely prevented to work in each case containing a clause like this 'I do here by release said Lake Superior Iron Com pany from all claims for such damages, no matter from what cause x accident occurred, whether claimed to be from the negligence of the Lake Superior Iron Company, its officers, servants, or agents, or otherwise.
 In this case the recipient could not read, and not knowing the effect of the receipt he signed, it was no bar to his re- covery for damage sustained in the em ploy and through the negligence of that company. The Supreme Court, how ever, held that such receipt would be a bar to an action when knowingly and understandingly signed.
 That it is against public policy to endow persons with rights and charge them with duties. and then to privilege them